Actually, it's not a lack of planning, it's really bad planning, and far too much of it. Minimum parking requirements incentivize people to drive everywhere, filling the roads and streets with cars which require more, costly infrastructure which doesn't pay for itself by half.
The parking lots themselves also pay hardly anything in taxes compared to the businesses and residences that could be put there, and because they are non-destinations, they contribute to longer travel distances between actual destinations A and B. This makes walking and transit infeasible (not that cars are feasible, see above).
Building codes like height limits, minimum setbacks, and maximum floor area ratios also create sprawl and limit a city's productivity, jobs per acre and tax revenue per acre. So to make up the difference, cities expand out until they can't, and because they never budget for maintenance 30, 40, 50 years down the road, the more they build, the poorer they get!
So it's a huge, misplanned mess, not an unplanned one.
Why? Instead of increasing supply, why not reduce demand? That's how eBay works, if you think about it. Does the winner ever complain about being overcharged?
Even a lithium-ion battery has only 99% charge efficiency, so it makes sense that adding a battery to your photovoltaic (PV) system can increase emissions compared to a PV system with no battery.
Note the following:
The researchers found that the only way to reliably decrease emissions using batteries is if utilities incorporate a "Social Cost of Carbon" into their pricing schemes--that is, charging people extra for using electricity during carbon-heavy periods of generation. This helps bring batteries into the emissions-reducing fold. Unfortunately, including a cost for carbon dioxide emissions has proven politically difficult.
This is why it needs to be a revenue-neutral carbon tax. If the tax is 10 cents per kWh and the average person uses 4,000 kWh per year, then everyone would receive a $400 check every year whether they used any electricity that year or not.
your linked article claims that houses on the tops of hills are cheaper because their sewer connections have "no need for expensive pumps".
He's a civil engineer and member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Could you explain how he's wrong? Here's what he wrote:
"The houses tend to be older and so they also tend to occupy the high ground, which was the cheapest place to build way back then (free, natural drainage). The high ground also makes sewer service more affordable; no expensive pumps to operate and maintain."
the vast majority of the population doesn't want to live [in apartments].
No, the fact that the government charges people extra to live in apartments, and has to pay people through subsidies and tax advantages to live elsewhere, proves otherwise. Our land use patterns are the result of governmental social engineering at its finest!
As you get older, uncapped property taxes keep going up and up. Eventually, even after the home is paid for, your taxes exceed what your monthly mortgage payment was. At some point you can't afford to live there any longer.
Then I'll have millions in equity and can afford to move to a cheaper place.
I would like to opt out of Prop 13's protections against high property taxes in the future in exchange for a lower property tax today. Where do I sign up?
But it means more highways, more roads and more infrastructure spending, and that means taxes on the ultra wealthy.
If only that were true. In the real world, the poor subsidize the affluent. But go on spreading misinformation if it helps to line your wealthy pockets!
And property taxes assessed on the value of the land perversely incentivize people to come out in droves to oppose anything that can raise the value of their properties. For example, relaxed height limits, minimum setbacks, maximum floor area ratios, and minimum parking requirements--these things all attract NIMBYs like flies to a feast. It's all one big, fantastic mess.
I used to ride a bike to school in a suburb of Phoenix. Occasionally drivers would yell or throw stuff at me as they passed.
Later, I delivered pizza in another suburb. I stopped putting on the car topper because people would yell and honk at me. So you see, Phoenix drivers are intolerant of anything on their road that falls outside the norm.
Phoenix is also one of the road rage capitals of the USA. So it isn't just Waymo.
We'll need to be mining a dozen times as many metals to meet demand for wind turbines and solar panels by 2050.
Why? Is there a price ceiling on these metals that prevents the market from reaching equilibrium? Or does the shortage have some other cause?
I have a strong suspicion that the author doesn't understand economics well enough to read a demand curve.
Why is this important? Maybe there are alternative designs which aren't currently used much because they are more expensive, and if demand for the traditional metals pushes the price up, suddenly the alternatives become economical.
Meaning, if you have storage (batteries, pumped hydro storage, flywheels, etc, you still need 2-4x as much total capacity for coverage.
For the third time, you can you support that claim? Do you understand what "price elasticity of demand" means? Do you even know how to read a demand curve?
We quite simply CANNOT implement enough solar or wind power. Nor could we build lesser capacities and back it with batteries. The quantities required simply aren't feasible.
Really? How much of electrical power demand is perfectly inelastic, and what is stopping the market from building enough storage to satisfy that demand?
It isn't about us necessarily being an asshole, but conditions in our lives that direct us to make such decisions.
US/CAD we have strict rules when we are late for work.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's not a lack of planning, it's really bad planning, and far too much of it. Minimum parking requirements incentivize people to drive everywhere, filling the roads and streets with cars which require more, costly infrastructure which doesn't pay for itself by half.
The parking lots themselves also pay hardly anything in taxes compared to the businesses and residences that could be put there, and because they are non-destinations, they contribute to longer travel distances between actual destinations A and B. This makes walking and transit infeasible (not that cars are feasible, see above).
Building codes like height limits, minimum setbacks, and maximum floor area ratios also create sprawl and limit a city's productivity, jobs per acre and tax revenue per acre. So to make up the difference, cities expand out until they can't, and because they never budget for maintenance 30, 40, 50 years down the road, the more they build, the poorer they get!
So it's a huge, misplanned mess, not an unplanned one.
Why? Instead of increasing supply, why not reduce demand? That's how eBay works, if you think about it. Does the winner ever complain about being overcharged?
Even a lithium-ion battery has only 99% charge efficiency, so it makes sense that adding a battery to your photovoltaic (PV) system can increase emissions compared to a PV system with no battery.
Note the following:
This is why it needs to be a revenue-neutral carbon tax. If the tax is 10 cents per kWh and the average person uses 4,000 kWh per year, then everyone would receive a $400 check every year whether they used any electricity that year or not.
It would also teach them that slavery is alive and well.
No, it doesn't. Read it again.
He's a civil engineer and member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Could you explain how he's wrong? Here's what he wrote:
"The houses tend to be older and so they also tend to occupy the high ground, which was the cheapest place to build way back then (free, natural drainage). The high ground also makes sewer service more affordable; no expensive pumps to operate and maintain."
False.
Yes, you're describing a subsidy. Remember, the government cannot give someone a dollar without taking a dollar from someone else!
"[T]he mortgage interest deduction [encourages people to] buy bigger and more expensive homes."
The word "encourages" implies social engineering.
No, the fact that the government charges people extra to live in apartments, and has to pay people through subsidies and tax advantages to live elsewhere, proves otherwise. Our land use patterns are the result of governmental social engineering at its finest!
Then I'll have millions in equity and can afford to move to a cheaper place.
I would like to opt out of Prop 13's protections against high property taxes in the future in exchange for a lower property tax today. Where do I sign up?
If only that were true. In the real world, the poor subsidize the affluent. But go on spreading misinformation if it helps to line your wealthy pockets!
Actually, city governments heavily subsidize low-density housing for the affluent, wasting land on single-family residential homes that could be used for apartments which house more people, bring in more tax revenue per acre, and require less infrastructure per person. Inefficient zoning is why housing is in such short supply and expensive, why cities have so much traffic, and why cities have budget problems. It's all a big mess, and government is the problem. Yes, much of it started after WWII, with government-backed mortgages and the mortgage interest deduction, but these subsidies continue to exist to this day.
And property taxes assessed on the value of the land perversely incentivize people to come out in droves to oppose anything that can raise the value of their properties. For example, relaxed height limits, minimum setbacks, maximum floor area ratios, and minimum parking requirements--these things all attract NIMBYs like flies to a feast. It's all one big, fantastic mess.
...now we can be stuck in traffic underground! Brilliant!
Sure, but how much military strength is enough?
Of course this is like asking a billionaire how much wealth is enough. There is never enough!
Isn't it ironic that the supposedly anti-tax party is also the one that supports an expensive military?
...through the front door.
Calm down!
Now, what "crazy behavior" are you referring to?
I used to ride a bike to school in a suburb of Phoenix. Occasionally drivers would yell or throw stuff at me as they passed.
Later, I delivered pizza in another suburb. I stopped putting on the car topper because people would yell and honk at me. So you see, Phoenix drivers are intolerant of anything on their road that falls outside the norm.
Phoenix is also one of the road rage capitals of the USA. So it isn't just Waymo.
Why? Is there a price ceiling on these metals that prevents the market from reaching equilibrium? Or does the shortage have some other cause?
I have a strong suspicion that the author doesn't understand economics well enough to read a demand curve.
Why is this important? Maybe there are alternative designs which aren't currently used much because they are more expensive, and if demand for the traditional metals pushes the price up, suddenly the alternatives become economical.
If that's true then the rules are not too harsh.
For the third time, you can you support that claim? Do you understand what "price elasticity of demand" means? Do you even know how to read a demand curve?
Really? How much of that demand is perfectly inelastic, and what prevents the market from satisfying that demand?
Really? How much of electrical power demand is perfectly inelastic, and what is stopping the market from building enough storage to satisfy that demand?
What conditions prevent you from leaving earlier?
Well that's one argument for keeping the populace ignorant. ("Ignorance is bliss," as they say.) Are there any more?
Sometimes.
Partially.